Wakilii

Attorney General v Charles Obola & Others (Misc.App.No. 13 of 2001)

High Court · [2001] UGHC 91 · 2001 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to review a consent judgment arising from a civil suit for breach of terms and conditions of employment
Decision
Application for review of consent judgment dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

Held that the application to review a consent judgment was not fundamentally defective despite the supporting affidavit failing to disclose grounds for belief in information received from third parties, as this procedural defect did not affect the root of the affidavit or prejudice the respondents' defence. However, the application was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove that 1507 respondents had been paid pension before the consent judgment was recorded, which was the basis for seeking review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Outcome

Application for review of consent judgment dismissed

Facts

The respondents were former civil servants retrenched by the Government. They filed a civil suit on behalf of themselves and over six thousand colleagues claiming breach of terms and conditions of employment, specifically that the Government had promised to pay them pension upon retrenchment but reneged on that promise. On 10 January 2000, a consent judgment was recorded in which the Attorney General undertook to pay the respondents Shs.7,356,283,107 as pension. A subsequent consent order provided that the respondents' advocates would receive 15% of the pension money as remuneration, and the court ordered the Attorney General to pay this directly to the advocates. The Attorney General did not pay either the pension or the advocates' costs. Instead, he applied to review the consent judgment, claiming that he later discovered from the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Public Service that 1507 of the 6339 respondents were not entitled to pension, and that the true amount payable was only Shs.4,869,096,384. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the supporting affidavit was defective and that the applicant had not proved grounds for review under section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the application to review the consent judgment is fundamentally defective and should be dismissed on the ground that the supporting affidavit offends Order 17 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the application falls within the purview of section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 rules 1 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and should be granted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Affidavits — Order 17 Rule 3 — Interlocutory Applications — Failure to Disclose Grounds for Belief
Where an affidavit in support of an interlocutory application is based on information outside the deponent's personal knowledge and fails to disclose the grounds for believing that information, this procedural defect does not render the affidavit incurably bad if it does not affect the root of the affidavit and does not prejudice the opposing party in their defence.
Review of Judgment — Section 83 Civil Procedure Act — Grounds for Review — Consent Judgments
Although section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act appears to give courts wide discretion to review judgments, this discretion is limited by Order 42 Rule 1 and case law. A court may only exercise its discretion to review a consent judgment where the applicant proves one of the recognised grounds, including discovery of new and important evidence not within his knowledge at the time of judgment, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, fraud or collusion, agreement contrary to public policy, or some other valid reason affording good ground for varying or rescinding a contract.
Review of Judgment — Burden of Proof — Alleged New Evidence
Where an applicant seeks to review a consent judgment on the ground that he has discovered new and important matter of evidence not within his knowledge at the time of judgment, the burden lies on the applicant to prove the facts alleged. A letter from a government official alleging that certain respondents had been paid is not proof of payment where the respondents deny receipt under oath and the allegation remains unchallenged.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (1)

  • Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Mallya [1975] EA 266

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Attorney General v Charles Obola & Others (Misc.App.No. 13 of 2001) [2001] UGHC 91 (21 May 2001)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.